Warranties. Milan purchased saffron extract, marketed as "America's Hottest New Way to a Flat Belly," online from Dr. Chen. The website stated that recently published studies showed a significant weight loss (more than $25$ percent) for people who used pure saffron extract as a supplement without diet or exercise. Dr. Chen said that the saffron suppresses appetite by increasing levels of serotonin, which reduces emotional eating. Milan took the extract as directed without any resulting weight loss.

(a) The first group will determine whether Dr. Chen's website made any express warranty on the saffron extract or its effectiveness in causing weight loss.

(b) The second group will discuss whether the implied warranty of merchantability applies to the purchase of weightloss supplements.

(c) The third group will decide if Dr. Chen's sale of saffron extract breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

(d) The fourth group will evaluate the possible success of a suit against a company that offers weight-loss products requiring no diet or exercise given that, according to current common knowledge, people must burn more calories than they consume to lose weight.

What evidence did the plaintiff offer to establish standing to enforce the note? Was this sufficient proof? Explain.

Insurance Coverage. PAJ, Inc., a jewelry company, had a commercial general liability (CGL) policy from Hanover Insurance Company. The policy required PAJ to notify Hanover of any claim or suit against PAJ "as soon as practicable." Yurman Designs sued PAJ for copyright infringement because of the design of a particular jewelry line. Because PAJ did not realize that the CGL policy had a clause that covered infringement claims, it did not notify Hanover of the suit until four to six months after litigation began. Hanover contended that the policy did not apply to this incident because the late notification had violated its terms. PAJ sued Hanover, seeking a declaration that it was obligated to defend and indemnify (reimburse) PAJ for any loss resulting from the infringement claim. (See The Insurance Contract.)

(a) The first group will decide whether Hanover had an obligation to provide PAJ with legal assistance.

(b) The second group will determine the effect that PAJ's late notice to the insurance company had on its ability to provide assistance and mount a defense. Should the court require the insurance company to indemnify PAJ in this situation? Why or why not?

In Richland, Washington, Robert Ingersoll planned his wedding to include about a hundred guests, a photographer, a caterer, a wedding cake, and flowers. Ingersoll had been a customer of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts for more than nine years and had spent several thousand dollars at the shop. When he approached Arlene's owner, Baronelle Stutzman, to buy flowers for his wedding, she refused because Ingersoll and his fiancé, Curt Freed, were a same-sex couple. Deeply offended, Ingersoll and Freed dropped their wedding plans and married in a modest ceremony.

(a) Federal and state laws attempt to protect consumers from unfair trade practices, including discriminatory requirements, related to consumer transactions. Using the Review step of the IDDR approach, consider whether it would be ethically fair to hold Stutzman personally liable for a violation of these laws.

(b) Using the Discussion step of the IDDR approach, consider actions that Ingersoll and Freed as consumers might take in response to Arlene's-Stutzman's-discriminatory rejection of their offer to do business.

Signature Liability. Guillermo and Guadalupe Albarran and their sons, Ruben and Rolando, owned R. Cleaning Impact, Inc. (RCI). Neresh Kumar owned Amba II, Inc., a check-cashing business. The Albarrans cashed checks through Amba on a regular basis, often delivering a stack of employee paychecks to Amba for cashing. Later, the Albarrans' bank refused payment on some of the checks. Kumar learned that some of these items were payable to fictitious payees with fictitious addresses. Others had been filled out for amounts greater than real employees' pay. Meanwhile, RCI became insolvent and closed its account, and Guillermo and Guadalupe filed for bankruptcy. Amba was left with many unpaid checks. Among these parties, who can be held liable for the loss on the unpaid checks? Explain.

Adverse Possession. The Wallen family owned a cabin on Lummi Island in the state of Washington. A driveway ran from the cabin across their property to South Nugent Road. Floyd Massey bought the adjacent lot and built a cabin on it in $1980$. To gain access to his property, Massey used a bulldozer to extend the driveway, without the Wallens' permission but also without their objection. Twenty-five years later, the Wallens sold their property to Wright Fish Company. Massey continued to use and maintain the driveway without permission or objection. Later, Massey sold his property to Robert Drake. Drake and his employees continued to use and maintain the driveway without permission or objection, although Drake knew it was located permission or objection, although Drake knew it was located largely on Wright's property. Still later, Wright sold its lot to Robert Smersh. The next year, Smersh told Drake to stop using the driveway. Drake filed a suit against Smersh, claiming adverse possession.

(a) The first group will decide whether Drake's use of the driveway meets all of the requirements for adverse possession.

(b) The second group will determine how the court should rule in this case and why. Does it matter that Drake knew the driveway was located largely on Wright's (and then Smersh's) property? Should it matter? Why or why not?

(c) A third group will evaluate the underlying policy and fairness of adverse possession laws. Should the law reward persons who take possession of someone else's land for their own use? Does it make sense to punish owners who allow someone else to use their land without complaint? Explain.

(d) The fourth group will consider how the laws governing adverse possession vary from state to state. To acquire title through adverse possession, a person might be required to possess the property for five years in one state, for instance, and for twenty years in another. Are there any legitimate reasons for such regional differences? Would it be better if all states had the same requirements? Explain your answers.

In what circumstance might the Port Authority-or anyone else-take a migratory bird without a permit and not be sanctioned?

Suppose that the name Red Rhino Market Group, LLC, had not been included on the note. Would Evans have been personally liable for its payment? Discuss.

A Question of Ethics-The IDDR Approach and Discharge by Operation of Law. Lisa Goldstein reserved space for a marriage ceremony in a building owned by Orensanz Events, LLC, in New York City. The rental agreement provided that on cancellation of the event "for any reason beyond Owner's control," the client's sole remedy was another date for the event or a refund. Shortly before the wedding, the New York City Department of Buildings found Orensanz's building to be structurally unstable and ordered it vacated. The owner closed it and told Goldstein to find another venue. She filed a suit in a New York state court against Orensanz for breach of contract, arguing that the city's order had been for a cause within the defendant's control.

(a) Is the owner of a commercial building ethically obligated to keep it structurally sound? Apply the IDDR approach in the context of the Goldstein case to answer this question.

(b) Is a contracting party ethically obligated to "relax" the terms of the deal if the other party encounters "trouble" in performing them? Discuss.

A Question of Ethics-The Doctrine of Precedent. Sandra White operated a travel agency. To obtain lower airline fares for her nonmilitary clients, she booked military-rate travel by forwarding fake military identification cards to the airlines. The government charged White with identity theft, which requires the "use" of another's identification. The trial court had two cases that represented precedents.

In the first case, David Miller obtained a loan to buy land by representing that certain investors had approved the Loan when, in fact, they had not. Miller's conviction for identity theft was overturned because he had merely said that the investors had done something when they had not. According to the court, this was not the "use" of another's identification.

In the second case, Kathy Medlock, an ambulance service operator, had transported patients when there was no medical necessity to do so. To obtain payment, Medlock had forged a physician's signature. The court concluded that this was "use" of another person's identity. [United States v. White, $846$ F.$3$d $170$ ($6$th Cir. $2017$)] (See Sources of American Law.)

• Which precedent-the Miller case or the Medlock caseis similar to White's situation, and why?

• In the two cases cited by the court, were there any ethical differences in the actions of the parties? Explain your answer.

Court Opinions. Read through the subsection in this chapter entitled "Decisions and Opinions." (See How to Read and Understand Case Law.)

• One group will explain the difference between a concurring opinion and a majority opinion.
• Another group will outline the difference between a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion.
• A third group will explain why judges and justices might write concurring and dissenting opinions, given that these opinions will not affect the outcome of the case at hand, which has already been decided by majority vote.

On learning that Sébastien planned to travel abroad, Roslyn asked him to deliver $25,000 in cash to her family in Mexico. During a customs inspection at the border, Sébastien told the customs inspector that he carried less than$10,000. The officer discovered the actual amount of cash that Sébastien was carrying, seized it, and arrested Sebastien. Roslyn asked the government to return what she claimed were her funds, arguing that the arrangement with Sébastien was a bailment and that she still held title to the cash. (See Bailments.)

(a) The first group will argue that Roslyn is entitled to the cash.

(b) The second group will take the position of the government and develop an argument that Roslyn's agreement with Sébastien does not qualify as a bailment.

(c) The third group will assume that a bailment was created, identify what type of bailment it was, and explain the degree of care required of the bailee.

Rainbow School, Inc., has run a child-care facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina, for more than twenty years. In addition to using the word "rainbow" in its name, the school uses rainbow imagery on its logo. Rainbow Early Education Holding, LLC, operates child-care facilities in several states. Early Education opened a branch in Fayetteville near the Rainbow School under the name "Rainbow Child Care Center," which also used rainbow imagery on its logo. The school filed a suit in a federal district court against Early Education, alleging a violation of the Lanham Act. The parties entered into a settlement agreement that required Early Education to stop using the word "rainbow" in connection with its Fayetteville facility. The court issued an injunction to enforce the agreement. Nevertheless, Early Education continued to use the word "rainbow" in domain names, links, and meta tags associated with its Fayetteville facility's website. Rainbow School imagery was used in a mailer inviting residents to the "nearest Rainbow Child Care Center." Did Early Education violate the Lanham Act? Explain.

Holder in Due Course. Through negotiation, Emilio has received from dishonest payees two checks with the following histories:

(a) The drawer issued a check to the payee for $\$ 9$. The payee cleverly altered the numeral amount on the check from $\$ 9$ to $\$ 90$ and the written word from "nine" to "ninety."

(b) The drawer issued a check to the payee without filling in the amount. The drawer authorized the payee to fill in the amount for no more than $\$ 90$. The payee filled in the amount of $\$ 900$.

Discuss whether Emilio, by giving value to the payees, can qualify as a holder in due course of these checks. (See Holder in Due Course.)